Nikon D700

Advertisements

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:02:48 -0700, "RLL" <> wrote:
>Am considering the Nikon D700. Any early comments?
>
I saw one last night at the camera club meeting. A full-frame entry
in the camera market. The camera store owner who brought the camera
commented that the obvious gap in numbering and the jump up to "700"
convinces him that Nikon will offer additional full-frame models at
more affordable prices.

What impressed me more than the camera was the new flash. I didn't
catch the number, but it has a focussable beam.

He's selling the 700 with a 24/120 at $3,000. Another (I think it
was) $500 for the flash.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Hi
Also interested in the D700. Have a D300, D200 and D70, all using DX lenses.
Not sure about this, but have heard D3 reverts to some horrible
configuration when a DX (rather than FX) lense is fitted.

Is this true?

If so, then a lot of upgraders need to consider upgrading a lot of glass
too!

"Joe Fitzpatrick" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Hi
> Also interested in the D700. Have a D300, D200 and D70, all using DX
> lenses. Not sure about this, but have heard D3 reverts to some horrible
> configuration when a DX (rather than FX) lense is fitted.
>
> Is this true?

It reverts to DX mode (so you keep the telephoto advantage) but at a
miserable 5 megapixels.

So yes its pointless. You not only need a D700 but a couple of expensive
wide and telephoto lenses too. Adds about 2 thousand pounds to the bill.
I am also in this position too.
And I get to lose the use of the extremely useful 18-200 VR as well!

But I have to do it...
Have you seen the difference in both noise and sharpness over a D300?

D300 and wide and telephoto zooms are for sale...
And my 18-200 is exeptionally sharp (compared to 3 others now) its a made in
japan one too...

"Burgerman" <> wrote in message
news:ITnkk.701$2...
> "Joe Fitzpatrick" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Hi
>> Also interested in the D700. Have a D300, D200 and D70, all using
>> DX lenses. Not sure about this, but have heard D3 reverts to some
>> horrible configuration when a DX (rather than FX) lense is fitted.
>>
>> Is this true?
>
>
>
> It reverts to DX mode (so you keep the telephoto advantage) but at a
> miserable 5 megapixels.
>
> So yes its pointless. You not only need a D700 but a couple of
> expensive wide and telephoto lenses too. Adds about 2 thousand
> pounds to the bill.
> I am also in this position too.
> And I get to lose the use of the extremely useful 18-200 VR as well!
>
> But I have to do it...
> Have you seen the difference in both noise and sharpness over a
> D300?
>
> D300 and wide and telephoto zooms are for sale...
> And my 18-200 is exeptionally sharp (compared to 3 others now) its a
> made in japan one too...
>
What will you do if the D800 comes out? Your D700 will probably be a
big dissapointment.

"Frank Arthur" <> wrote in message
news:NOpkk.1835$...
>
> "Burgerman" <> wrote in message
> news:ITnkk.701$2...
>> "Joe Fitzpatrick" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> Hi
>>> Also interested in the D700. Have a D300, D200 and D70, all using DX
>>> lenses. Not sure about this, but have heard D3 reverts to some horrible
>>> configuration when a DX (rather than FX) lense is fitted.
>>>
>>> Is this true?
>>
>>
>>
>> It reverts to DX mode (so you keep the telephoto advantage) but at a
>> miserable 5 megapixels.
>>
>> So yes its pointless. You not only need a D700 but a couple of expensive
>> wide and telephoto lenses too. Adds about 2 thousand pounds to the bill.
>> I am also in this position too.
>> And I get to lose the use of the extremely useful 18-200 VR as well!
>>
>> But I have to do it...
>> Have you seen the difference in both noise and sharpness over a D300?
>>
>> D300 and wide and telephoto zooms are for sale...
>> And my 18-200 is exeptionally sharp (compared to 3 others now) its a made
>> in japan one too...
>>
> What will you do if the D800 comes out? Your D700 will probably be a big
> dissapointment.

I would probably buy one. Why not if its better? My D300 is well over a year
old and about 7k shots. And its paid for itself many times over.

Burgerman wrote:
> Joe Fitzpatrick wrote
>
>> Hi
>> Also interested in the D700. Have a D300, D200 and D70, all using DX
>> lenses. Not sure about this, but have heard D3 reverts to some
>> horrible configuration when a DX (rather than FX) lense is fitted.
>>
>> Is this true?

Yeah but it's optional, at least on the D3. Perhaps not on the D700?
> It reverts to DX mode (so you keep the telephoto advantage) but at a
> miserable 5 megapixels.
>
> So yes its pointless. You not only need a D700 but a couple of expensive
> wide and telephoto lenses too.

It depends what lenses you have, full frame is generally easier to get
wide angle. A 20mm f/2.8 AF looks like 13mm on DX and is a nice
affordable compact lens. For long telephoto shooting, full frame is
going to cost a lot more and a DX body makes more sense.
> Adds about 2 thousand pounds to the bill.
> I am also in this position too.
> And I get to lose the use of the extremely useful 18-200 VR as well!
>
> But I have to do it...
> Have you seen the difference in both noise and sharpness over a D300?
>
> D300 and wide and telephoto zooms are for sale...
> And my 18-200 is exeptionally sharp (compared to 3 others now) its a
> made in japan one too...
>
>

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:10:28 -0400, "Frank Arthur" <>
wrote:
>
>"Burgerman" <> wrote in message
>news:ITnkk.701$2...
>> "Joe Fitzpatrick" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> Hi
>>> Also interested in the D700. Have a D300, D200 and D70, all using
>>> DX lenses. Not sure about this, but have heard D3 reverts to some
>>> horrible configuration when a DX (rather than FX) lense is fitted.
>>>
>>> Is this true?
>>
>>
>>
>> It reverts to DX mode (so you keep the telephoto advantage) but at a
>> miserable 5 megapixels.
>>
>> So yes its pointless. You not only need a D700 but a couple of
>> expensive wide and telephoto lenses too. Adds about 2 thousand
>> pounds to the bill.
>> I am also in this position too.
>> And I get to lose the use of the extremely useful 18-200 VR as well!
>>
>> But I have to do it...
>> Have you seen the difference in both noise and sharpness over a
>> D300?
>>
>> D300 and wide and telephoto zooms are for sale...
>> And my 18-200 is exeptionally sharp (compared to 3 others now) its a
>> made in japan one too...
>>
>What will you do if the D800 comes out? Your D700 will probably be a
>big dissapointment.
>
According to a camera store owner - and Nikon dealer - in this area,
he expects Nikon to come out with something between the D300 and the
D700 that is a bit less pricey. Most of the features, but costs cut
somewhere.

"Paul Furman" <> wrote in message
news:Rpqkk.8952$...
>
> Yeah but it's optional, at least on the D3. Perhaps not on the D700?

It's optional on the D700 too.

As for the "telephoto" effect, that is a misnomer. If you put a 300 lens on
a DX box, you get the magnification of a 450, but not the compression. It
seems to me that since the resolution of the new sensors approach the
resolution of the glass, one can use the image magnification algorithm in
the processing program to obtain the same effect.

One of my friends is using his 12-24 and 10.5 on his 700, with the DX option
turned off. and the rectlinear correction in Capture. He claims to have some
interesting WA effects, even after adjusting for the difference in image
size on the sensor. I will probably get to see them in about 2 -3 weeks.
>
> It depends what lenses you have, full frame is generally easier to get
> wide angle. A 20mm f/2.8 AF looks like 13mm on DX and is a nice affordable
> compact lens. For long telephoto shooting, full frame is going to cost a
> lot more and a DX body makes more sense.
>
See my above comment.

Peter wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote
>
>> Yeah but it's optional, at least on the D3. Perhaps not on the D700?
>
>
> It's optional on the D700 too.

Ah, nice. I'm on the verge of getting one, grasping for excuses to put
it off.

> As for the "telephoto" effect, that is a misnomer. If you put a 300 lens
> on a DX box, you get the magnification of a 450, but not the
> compression.

I'm pretty sure it's identical other than lens resolution and depth of
field.

> It seems to me that since the resolution of the new
> sensors approach the resolution of the glass, one can use the image
> magnification algorithm in the processing program to obtain the same
> effect.
>
> One of my friends is using his 12-24 and 10.5 on his 700, with the DX
> option turned off. and the rectlinear correction in Capture. He claims
> to have some interesting WA effects, even after adjusting for the
> difference in image size on the sensor. I will probably get to see them
> in about 2 -3 weeks.

I'm looking forward to that almost full circular fisheye view from the
10.5. And I'll finally get benefit from my (seemed like a stupid idea
for the last few years) Sigma 12-24 with full frame coverage which will
give a DX equivalent of 7.92mm rectilinear view on FX I have a dozen
or so lenses and only the 10.5 is DX so it should be fun.

>> It depends what lenses you have, full frame is generally easier to get
>> wide angle. A 20mm f/2.8 AF looks like 13mm on DX and is a nice
>> affordable compact lens. For long telephoto shooting, full frame is
>> going to cost a lot more and a DX body makes more sense.
>>
> See my above comment.
>

"Paul Furman" <> wrote in message
news:t_ykk.17685$...
> Peter wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote
>>> Yeah but it's optional, at least on the D3. Perhaps not on the D700?
>>
>>
>> It's optional on the D700 too.
>
> Ah, nice. I'm on the verge of getting one, grasping for excuses to put it
> off.
>
>
>> As for the "telephoto" effect, that is a misnomer. If you put a 300 lens
>> on a DX box, you get the magnification of a 450, but not the compression.
>
> I'm pretty sure it's identical other than lens resolution and depth of
> field.
>
>
>> It seems to me that since the resolution of the new sensors approach the
>> resolution of the glass, one can use the image magnification algorithm in
>> the processing program to obtain the same effect.
>>
>> One of my friends is using his 12-24 and 10.5 on his 700, with the DX
>> option turned off. and the rectlinear correction in Capture. He claims to
>> have some interesting WA effects, even after adjusting for the difference
>> in image size on the sensor. I will probably get to see them in about
>> 2 -3 weeks.
>
> I'm looking forward to that almost full circular fisheye view from the
> 10.5. And I'll finally get benefit from my (seemed like a stupid idea for
> the last few years) Sigma 12-24 with full frame coverage which will give a
> DX equivalent of 7.92mm rectilinear view on FX I have a dozen or so
> lenses and only the 10.5 is DX so it should be fun.

Yeah I thought the Sigma was a stupid idea and got the Nikon 12-24 about a
year ago.

I was in B&H the other day, they were almost giving away D200s.
--
Peter

Hi and thanks for the confirmation about using DX lenses.
I haven't seen the difference between the D700 and D300 for noise. I found
the improvement re noise between the D300 and D200 amazing. Noise is a real
issue for me as a wedding photographer, but can't justify £6000-£7000
investment against increased competition, lower prices and now the credit
crunch tempting brides to use a friend with a point and shoot!

But please hack me off and tell me how wonderfully the D700 has practically
no noise at 7,000,000 ISO!
"Burgerman" <> wrote in message
news:ITnkk.701$2...
> "Joe Fitzpatrick" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Hi
>> Also interested in the D700. Have a D300, D200 and D70, all using DX
>> lenses. Not sure about this, but have heard D3 reverts to some horrible
>> configuration when a DX (rather than FX) lense is fitted.
>>
>> Is this true?
>
>
>
> It reverts to DX mode (so you keep the telephoto advantage) but at a
> miserable 5 megapixels.
>
> So yes its pointless. You not only need a D700 but a couple of expensive
> wide and telephoto lenses too. Adds about 2 thousand pounds to the bill.
> I am also in this position too.
> And I get to lose the use of the extremely useful 18-200 VR as well!
>
> But I have to do it...
> Have you seen the difference in both noise and sharpness over a D300?
>
> D300 and wide and telephoto zooms are for sale...
> And my 18-200 is exeptionally sharp (compared to 3 others now) its a made
> in japan one too...
>
>

"Paul Furman" <> wrote in message
news:Rpqkk.8952$...
> Burgerman wrote:
>> Joe Fitzpatrick wrote
>>> Hi
>>> Also interested in the D700. Have a D300, D200 and D70, all using DX
>>> lenses. Not sure about this, but have heard D3 reverts to some horrible
>>> configuration when a DX (rather than FX) lense is fitted.
>>>
>>> Is this true?
>
> Yeah but it's optional, at least on the D3. Perhaps not on the D700?
>
>> It reverts to DX mode (so you keep the telephoto advantage) but at a
>> miserable 5 megapixels.
>> IN DX FORMAT getting a good wide-angle is a problem sometimes a real 20mm
>> lens (rather than effective 35mm) would be really usefull.
>> So yes its pointless. You not only need a D700 but a couple of expensive
>> wide and telephoto lenses too.
>
> It depends what lenses you have, full frame is generally easier to get
> wide angle. A 20mm f/2.8 AF looks like 13mm on DX and is a nice affordable
> compact lens. For long telephoto shooting, full frame is going to cost a
> lot more and a DX body makes more sense.
>
>> Adds about 2 thousand pounds to the bill.
>> I am also in this position too.
>> And I get to lose the use of the extremely useful 18-200 VR as well!
>>
>> But I have to do it...
>> Have you seen the difference in both noise and sharpness over a D300?
>>
>> D300 and wide and telephoto zooms are for sale...
>> And my 18-200 is exeptionally sharp (compared to 3 others now) its a made
>> in japan one too...
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Paul Furman
> www.edgehill.net
> www.baynatives.com
>
> all google groups messages filtered due to spam

"Joe Fitzpatrick" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Hi and thanks for the confirmation about using DX lenses.
> I haven't seen the difference between the D700 and D300 for noise. I found
> the improvement re noise between the D300 and D200 amazing. Noise is a
> real issue for me as a wedding photographer, but can't justify £6000-£7000
> investment against increased competition, lower prices and now the credit
> crunch tempting brides to use a friend with a point and shoot!

Just check out the D3 pics.

I had a D200 and the D300 as it was less noisey. The D3 and D700 are a mile
ahead. Forget about noise its usable at very high ISOs without issue.

>
> But please hack me off and tell me how wonderfully the D700 has
> practically no noise at 7,000,000 ISO!
> "Burgerman" <> wrote in message
> news:ITnkk.701$2...
>> "Joe Fitzpatrick" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> Hi
>>> Also interested in the D700. Have a D300, D200 and D70, all using DX
>>> lenses. Not sure about this, but have heard D3 reverts to some horrible
>>> configuration when a DX (rather than FX) lense is fitted.
>>>
>>> Is this true?
>>
>>
>>
>> It reverts to DX mode (so you keep the telephoto advantage) but at a
>> miserable 5 megapixels.
>>
>> So yes its pointless. You not only need a D700 but a couple of expensive
>> wide and telephoto lenses too. Adds about 2 thousand pounds to the bill.
>> I am also in this position too.
>> And I get to lose the use of the extremely useful 18-200 VR as well!
>>
>> But I have to do it...
>> Have you seen the difference in both noise and sharpness over a D300?
>>
>> D300 and wide and telephoto zooms are for sale...
>> And my 18-200 is exeptionally sharp (compared to 3 others now) its a made
>> in japan one too...
>>
>>
>
>

Share This Page

Welcome to Photography Forums!

Welcome to the Photography Forums where you can ask questions or find answers on anything related to photography, cameras and techniques.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to ask photography related questions or chat with the community and help others.
Sign up now!